Axe Amtrak!

[thirdrail1]

Until today, I had alway been a reluctant backer of the National Rail Passenger Corp., or Amtrak, simply because I enjoy riding trains and feel we need a national rail passenger network. But Amtrak made an appointment today that has convinced me it is so far from reality and so engrossed in inside the beltway politics that it roundly deserves execution as soon as possible. As most of you know, George Warrington, Amtrak's President, used to run the Northeast Corridor and was not replaced when he took on the whole operation. Today, with the change in administrations in New Jersey, its former Transportation Commissioner, James Weinstein, was out of a job, so he was put in charge of the Northeast Corridor. Just what was needed, yet ANOTHER political hack or bureaucrat. What really irks me is that Amtrak took over the Washington-Boston corridor from Penn Central and now the so-called Amtrak Reform Council wants to take it away from Amtrak and give it to the USDOT. Hell no, sell it back to the freight railroads, NS south of New York and CSXT north of there! The UTU has it right, Amtrak management are all from commuter operations, which are truly governmental entities in that competition is not allowed, and understand absolutely nothing about competing for the discretionary transportation dollar. Modal choice, what's that?? P&L responsibility, what's that? Income statement - can't read it, don't understand it, why do I need it? Let's really level the playing field, end Amtrak subsidies, but make the airlines take over the full payment and responsibility for the air traffic control system, the airport security system, and the airports themselves, which would put all that acreage back on the tax rolls. Mak'em pay back the 15 billion bailout they got this fall too!

[jsanchez]

Some of the large American shortline comglamorates like Rail America, Genessee and Wyoming, and Wisonsin Central run efficient passenger operations in foreign countries sometimes at a profit or with a goverment contract subsidy. Has anybody on the Amtrak reform council or in Washington talked to these companies about running passenger rail in the USA. Some of these companies have done a great job turning bureacratic, over unionized, goverment ran basket cases into productive services that people want to use.The shortline entreprneurs have a proven track record of turning money loosing freight operations in the U.S.A around lets give them a try at passenger trains. I think we could be pleasantly surprised.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

This is to reply to both Gregg and James.
First of all the airlines didn't receive a $15 billion bailout, they were offered $15 billion in loan guarantees, which so far only oneairline has applied for. They did receive a $5 billion payment for the days they were grounded.

I agree, we need some intercity passenger rail service, but not the long trains. Since FY 91 the trend has been for ridership to increase in the short to medium distance trip sector, including the Northeast Corridor and West Coast, while the trend has been a decrease or a level ridership of the long distance trains.

What is needed is a short term and a long term solution for passenger rail service. In the short term the short/medium haul passenger trains can largely be funded by their individual states since many of them are on intrstate runs, and were 403(b) trains run by Amtrak but supported by the states. The states therefore would have to find contractors who are willing to run the trains, and as James and others have suggested there may be contractors who would be interested in running the trains.

In the long term some high speed rail corridors might be developed. For a corridor to be viable there must be a high potential for enough ridership to make it pay. The corridors should range between 200-400 miles, the AVERAGE speed should be around 125 mph, and stopsshould be few, short, and widely spaced. A DOT study was performed some time ago which identified certain corridors, however many of them are not viable for one or more reasons. High speed rail as I have sort of defined it won't be cheap. In most cases dedicated lines, such as the French TGV lines,will be needed. So the question arises who will pay for it?

Under no circumstances should any successor passenger rail entity have the statutory right of access to the freight railroads nor should the freight railroads be required to give their passenger trains priority dispatching.

[BRAKIE]

Do you know what is so funny about all of this? When Amtrak was formed in 1971,People knew Amtrack would fail.No one listen.They did listen to the BIG LIE that Amtrak could make money in passenger trains where railroads failed.Since 1971,Amtrak has been loosing money hand over fist.Our very own goverment has spent untold Billions of our tax dollars on a system that was bound to fail! Yes,something had to be done.Enter the Amtrak reformed bill that stated Amtrak must be self sufficient by FY 2003.People knew then that it was a impracical task.In 2001,Amtrak hock Penn Station for 300 million to remain operating untill FY 2002.Was this a smart business move knowing that the loan must be repaid? How,when Congress cut the Amtrak buget? Yes,it is time for Amtrak to go.Sell the NEC to NS and CSX.Now,America needs passenger trains.But,How do we do it on a profitable bases?

[Anonymous]

Living as I do about 3 miles from the NEC in Rhode Island I follow discussions regarding it closely. I am very interested in the current privatization proposal from the Amtrak Reform Council,but I don't I have many questions and some skepticism. As far as the newly upgraded NEC does it really make sense to rip all the catenary down(especially the new plant between New Haven and Boston) and sell it to the freight railroads? I find it hard to believe that NS and CSX,especially in these tough times,would pay fair market value(i.e reimbursement for the billions in recent improvements,rolling stock,etc.) I would like to see a fully developed,high speed passenger link in place,either privatized or in some sort of public-private partnership. CSX uses the former Conrail Boston & Albany line for New England freight service and I can't see them shifting lots of traffic to tne NEC which,after all,would probably need more work to become a heavy freight line(doublestack friendly clearances,etc.). I have to wonder if some of the people posting on this are doing so because they enjoy trainspotting freight more than Amtrak(by the way,I enjoy freight equipment more,but this doesn't skew my view on transportation policy).
Also,keep in mind that these overseas passenger operations run by U.S based operators are in counties with underdeveloped regional air service,or where the government actively impedes private car usage for long distance travel by high gasoline taxes or other regulation(and I don't think any of us would like that here).
Anyway,I agree that the Federal government,without private sector involvement, is not going to be successful in the railroad business,so we need to look at alternatives. But I do think that commuter operations and the development of high speed regional rail corridors are important to improving the transportation system in the Northeast and nationwide.
Sincerely,
Jon Carney

[Anonymous]

Amtrak needs leaders, not politicians.
The name needs to change, too. it relates to failure too much. the current executives need the boot. the next or inheriting leaders, should be interested in providing fast, reliable, and friendly passenger service.

[Anonymous]

I just read a very interesting editorial on the Railway Age magazine website which seriously proposes that the big freight railroads consider taking over long distance passenger service and have it subsidized by tax breaks,with additional financing sources for capitol(low or no interest loans backed by the Federal Government). In the same issue there is an interview with the President of Canadian National where he states that this might actually work.

[BRAKIE]

That may sound good,but,that is how Amtrak got started.I can not see this happening.After all it was the freight railroads that wanted out of passenger business in the frist place.Only 6 did not choose to join amtrak in 1971.

[widave]

I have to believe a national system can work if run properly. Economies of scale have to realized and the operation of passenger trains by the freight railroads individually is not enough. A corporation composed of those companies hosting the trains could work. Maybe a sort of passenger railroad in the form of Trailer Train. Standardized equipment and supply chains must be realized, as well as interconnectivity and run through cars/routes. Facilities have to be clean and safe with adequate parking and amenities.
But a network has to be set-up. A network of interconnected long distance and corridor trains. With enough frequencies and equipment to satisfy demands of the travelers and do it reliably. The NEC is a whole railway in and of itself and should be seperated from the national/regional system, and answer to itself and its market. The long distance market should be run likewise, standing on it's own merit with it's own ability to make(or lose depending on the source) it's own structure of routes and have the people to manage it. The new Amtrak will have to work with the freight railroads to guarantee capacity enhancements that will allow trains to be able to run in a needed consistentcy. The Federal gov't will be the hinge in the whole thing though.
The airlines' passengers will have to pay their own way on their preferred mode of transport, and after the network of rail is running, the rail users can begin to pay their "fees" like the airline passengers do. These fees will then be returned to each mode to help fund itself.
I'd hate to lose the long distance trains. Try and price a flight for a family of five, then ask if you want to be stopping every half hour while in a car, not to mention motels. I'll take a 28 hour train ride over a three day car trip anyday!
Warrington has to go. Or at least stay with the NEC when everything is said and done. This old boy network from NJ doesn't have a clue!

[Anonymous]

It is strange how people think that investing in roads and airlines is just that: an investment, whilst less money put into rail systems is considered a subsidy!

I would advise those advocating changes to/axing of Amtrak NOT to do what the Tory government did here in the UK with BR. Railtrack lost the in-house engineering and maintenance facilities that BR had built-up, with the result that it had to subcontract out.

(There was an interesting drama on TV a while ago about Rail Privatisation: 'The Navigators').

Our West Coast Main Line Route Modernisation Scheme is well over-budget (the current cost esitmate is something like £7-8 billion as opposed to to an estimate of arounf £2-4 billion), and even though Virgin is having trains capable of 140 mph, they think they will not run above 120 mph for another 10 years!

At the same time they are phasing out the HST 125 'Inter-City' trains which were a success story for BR. The East Coast Main Line is not being upgraded to the same degree as the WCML, hence the HSTs are having to be refurbished (they are excellent trains) to improve services.

A long-term plan is needed: build some high-speed corridors (150mph to 200 mph) and maintain a strong in-house engineering department.

It could be possible to allow different companies to run different trains.

[Anonymous]

Keep in mind a couple of points. Firstly,Railway Age is not a railfan publication,it is the most widely read trade publication in the industry.it's fair to say that all the big movers and shakers read it. The editors of the magazine do not take editorial positions lightly. I urge everyone to go to www.railwayage.com and read it.
Secondly,the main concept is that the railroads would not be operating passenger service to make a profit off of ticket sales,but instead in return for major tax breaks,which in turn would contribute to the bottom line. This is a very different proposition than the pre-Amtrak situation where the railroads operated in a highly regulated environment,and were essentially forced to operate unprofitable passenger routes as a public service. I'm not saying this is a complete solution,but it may be part of a bigger restructuring plan.

[jsanchez]

I'm afraid of the same mess in England happening here, it seems the private sector with goverments help made a bigger mess, than when the railroads were under British Rail. To me it seems like they franchised to many private operators, it should have been limited to 4 or 5. Seperating the track owenership from the operating companies was the biggest disaster, what scares me is the clowns on the Amtrak Reform Council want to try this, idiots that they are. Some of the British operators want to do away with this miss-guided seperation, best of luck to them.
Also where is the demand from Libertarians(hypocrites) and Texas Republicans to privatize the interstate highway system, this is a bigger drain and welfare system on the taxpayer than Amtrak ever will and can be. Japan is privatizing its interstate equivilents, maybe the U.S and Britain should look into it. New freeway construction and maintenance keeps going up substantially every year as truck sizes and auto traffic increases, this is coming to a head also, and will make the Amtrak crisis seem minscule.

James
A Republican who thinks theres a role for passenger trains and mass-transit

[Anonymous]

For a very recent (2001) insight into the British system, you should try:

"Broken Rails" by Christian Wolmar (He writes in the fortnightly publication 'RAIL' here in the UK).

The only 'disadvantage' is that it was published just before Stephen Byers put Railtrack into Administration.

All those thinking of changing the funding, structure and organisation of a rail system need to read this book!

Jason.

[Anonymous]

Okay, I have to throw my two cents worth in on this one. Amtrak as an entity is not at fault here. The people who run it and the people who oversee it are. Amtrak was handed a mandate to take over the the shoddy remnants of passenger trains service in this country and to do it with basically junk. It has been hamstrung since day one and battered by a constant stream of "Oh wait, you need to do it this way or else" micro-management. Over time, management has lost focus on the real mission, running a railroad, and instead has had to concentrate on fending off the wolves who would shut Amtrak down. So now the ARC wants to privatize it. What good will that do? The private sector wanted to get rid of it in the first place, that's how Amtrak got started in the first place. The Brits tried turning their national rail system over to private companys and I can tell you from first hand experience it isn't working.

Many things need to happen. Amtrak management needs to be sacked and replaced with a board of directors made up of real railroaders, people with experience. Congress needs to get off it's dead butt and fund it enough to make it competitive in both price and service (I live in Charleston, SC, and it would take me 12 hours to get to Atlanta by Amtrak. Big strike right there). And finally, a dynamic national transportation strategy for the next 50 years that includes roads, ships, planes and trains needs to be drafted and implemented.

I have traveled to many places around the world and used foriegn mass transit every place I went. America is pathetic when it comes to this service for many reasons. As has been stated in previous posts, those countries with viable mass transit systems are ones who have barriers to the use of private conveyance and whose governments provide the lions share of funding. But due to America's size, both in population and in land mass, we have to appoach the issue of rail transit from a bigger picture (aka the transportation strategy). Simply putting a bullet in Amtrak and letting free enterprise handle it won't do it. It's going to take a lot more than that to get passenger rail service out of the quagmire Uncle Sugar has gotten it into.

[Anonymous]

My wish for the demise of Amtrak is strictly for selfish reasons. If the frieght carrier's don't run the passenger business, then let it die. Then frieght trains would'nt have to sit at various places and wait for the longest times because of poor dispatching from some individual who should never have left his desk at Yellow Cab! There could be some sweet job's for us lowly frieght haulers again if the private lines take over once more...Bring it on...Hommie

[Anonymous]

And my reasons for wanting passenger rail to stay alive are purely selfish. Airline travel sucks and driving the mind numbingly dull interstates with their never ending adds for cookie cutter hotels and fast food is something I can take very little of.

Of course the freight roads would let passenger rail die. Their management would be too wrapped up in trying to take over each other like the 19th Century mine-is-bigger-than-yours leftovers that they are. They wouldn't have time to pull their heads out and do some forward thinking about how they could win back both freight from trucks and passengers from the airlines while actually making a buck doing it.

Sad..

[BRAKIE]

Well,Why would any railroad want to take over a dead or dying horse? The by gone years of passenger trains are gone,their time has passed.It was not the railroads who killed the passenger train,it was our very own goverment that help build airports and interstates.Even today they give Amtrak millions on one hand and give airlines the same help with the other hand.Make sence to you? Build a high speed rail line? HA! Not on your life,the NIMBYs won't let that happen.The EPA won't let that happen,The green peace folks won't let that happen, then you have the ect,ect,ect,and so on that will not allow it.yeah,I can see the class action law suits now!

[Anonymous]

I agree that the economic conditions do not exist at this time for a National passenger rail network. Because of the interstate highway system, busses currently perform this function and I can't envision a rail system that would outperform the bus in this country right now. People just don't wan't to give up that much freedom over their own schedule. A passenger rail system may work in parts of the northeast but I don't see it anywhere else. I'm not talking about light commuter rail because that is essentially an exposed subway; another animal. And although the government gives our money to the highway system and to airports and airlines I don't think it should give our money to maintain a passenger rail system. Passenger rail should be allowed to live or die on its own. I also think that letting the private railroad industry perform this function is the only honest way to see if it can happen.

I have been told that Europe has passenger rail transportation the way it should be, but it is provided by the people through the government via MASSIVE taxation. Where do you think the three dollars or whatever a gallon they pay in taxes goes? Passenger rail may not be right for the USA.

[Anonymous]

Think about the U.S. past. Passenger lines were the main way the west was conquered. It could still be effective, but it will take some time and ingenuity.

[jamesedwbradley]

I am constantly surprised by the so-called 'railfans' who oppose our passenger-train system; it would seem proper for us to support all trains, both passenger and freight. As to Amtrak, consider the advantages of having a single, unified national system with one management and the resulting coordination of purchasing, equipment, and services. I'm not in a position to criticize its management and indulge in name-calling or labeling of them as 'hacks' or people insensitive to bottom lines. I DO think maybe Amtrak has not conducted thorough market research to identify passenger demand, and may be running services based more on tradition than on need. We fans must recognize that (particularly long-distance)passenger trains now serve several niche markets: 'heritage tourists' interested in actually seeing (and in some cases showing their children) our country; small-town residents far from any airport; some folks who are reasonably leery of flight, who just like trains, or are wedded to rail by personal or family tradition; singles such as students and service personnel who like the comfort and camaraderie of trains. There are shorter-distance markets for business and general travelers. I was raised in the days of economic regulation when each mode was said to have its 'inherent advantage(s)', and feel that the buses aren't adequate to long-distance travel and should be spokes to rail-station hubs, plus interconnectors in certain cases where rails are circuitous; if this smacks of 'central planning' so be it! The object is public passenger service (the privacy aspect is important in the auto's popularity; people apparently will forego privacy for airline speed). A balanced passenger system calls for all modes to be used. I certainly DO NOT want to see long-distance rail service given over to 'cruise trains' for the super-rich ($3000-5000 a head to me is for super-rich)!
Jim Bradley Hawk Mountain Chapter Natl.Ry.Hist.Soc.

[Anonymous]

Amen! Although I don't agree completely with all your points, I do think you hit a home run with that one. Especially the part about the "balanced passenger system..." What most everyone fails to recognize is the imporance of that aspect. America needs a transportation strategy badly. Sept 11 proved that with no doubt. Couple this with the ever increasing driving population, continuing cheap gas prices, unchecked urban sprawl and a host of other conditions and what you have is a headed into mass gridlock.

I admit, taking a train from coast to coast is both economically and time prohibitive. Airlines have the advantage hands down. But if I have the choice of driving 6 hours, taking the train for 7 or flying for 4 (taking into account layovers, etc) to get to a destination, I will take the train. The advantages far out weigh the disadvantages. Less tiring, less wear on my car, better food, interesting people and more time to take advantage of.

Imagine this. You shop online for the best airfare across country and find a really good one. But it is from a city about 3 hours away. No problem, you hop on the next passenger train to that city where you connect to a light rail out to the airport. Utopia? Did it in South Korea. Did it in England. Why shouldn't I be able to do it here?

It's going to be a long haul but the railfans out here need to speak up. We need to support passenger and freight railroads as part of a well balanced national transportaion system. Even if you don't like one or the other, at least do it for the folks that need jobs.

[BRAKIE]

While it is true America needs passenger trains,both short and long haul,the real question is How? We live in a "Right Now and Hurry,Hurry Generation". Today most folks worry more about how fast they can get there and do nothing once they do get to where they are going.Next time you are in your car you can see this by the way they drive.I can not see these folks getting on a train for a 7 hour or longer train ride.Folks are complaining about the long wait they have at the airports getting through security check points.How much more would they complain if the train was late and they miss their flight? It would amount to lost riders for the train.Lost riders means lost profits on the bottom line.You can not operate a business when the botton line shows red in the profit column.One only needs to look at Amtrak to see this or look at the failed short lines.If you would put the passenger train in the hands of big business,it will not last long again the profit line.Now,the answer may just lay in the past.At one time the railroads give top priority to passenger trains and woe to the dispatcher that held up a passenger train! Would this work today with top priority intermodel trains like the UPS trains? I don't think so.

[Anonymous]

True, we live in a the "I want it 5-minutes ago" age. I myself have been and at times still am guilty of that attitude. But, everytime I have ridden a train, I have made it a point to talk to as many folks as I can and find out why they took the train. Most echoed the same sentiments, that train travel was slow, etc. However, many also said that once they realized they could RELAX, they knew it was a better way to travel. I don't think the problem is going to be keeping riders, there are 265 million people in the country so we don't have a thin market for railroads to sell to. The problem is going to be getting people to try rail travel.

As for the delays and priority of the passenger trains, well, that is where the national transportation strategy comes in. Rebuild and expand the rail infrastructure, use technology to push more trains down the line, and make cooperation and coordination of paramount importance. As a side note, what about building up all the abandoned or little used segments of rail right-of-way that exists in this country and letting the passenger trains use those? Takes the passenger trains out of the freight roads hair and gives the freight road one more alternative when needing to reroute traffic.

There are ways to get where we need to be. But we need to start now and make a concerted effort at getting it done. The public is willing to try mass transit again, just look at the continued growth of commuter rail. Local, state and Federal agencies just need to be locked in a room and forced to work together to get transportation heading in the right direction. If we wait another 30 years, it may be too late.

[Anonymous]

As long as we continue to operate passenger service at automobile speeds on freight rails, we will never have a rail service the American public will embrace. We need to develop 21st Century trains that can move at 200+ mph without grade crossings or shared rails. Until we get independently owned and operated, professional high speed rail systems that can compete with the airlines on routes under 500 miles, our national rail system will always be just a Burger King on rails. Compare Amtrak's schedule with Greyhound Bus Lines:
New York to Los Angeles in 64 hours for $1018, no first class available (bus: 71 hrs/$129).
Chicago to St. Louis in 5 1/2 hours, $42 one way, no first class (bus: 5+05/$30).
St. Louis to Pittsburgh in 18 hours $86 one way (bus: 15 hrs/$87). No first class.

[Anonymous]

As much as I love trains, I have to reluctantly admit that, aside from a few short distance, high-density corridors, passenger rail travel is as obsolete as ocean-going luxury liners. Which is to say, obsolete as a means of transportation, but perfectly viable as a means of recreation and tourism.

Air travel has too many technological advantages for trips beyond a couple of hundred miles, and car travel is so much more flexible for short trips.

We keep talking about reforming Amtrak to provide routine NY-LA passenger service, but that's never going to happen. The airlines will always win that battle. What we ought to be thinking about is a) making those high-density short hauls viable, and b) encouraging tourist railways (which don't need and shouldn't get tax dollars).

I'm sure that doesn't sit well with a bunch of folks, but it's the world as I see it.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

I agree the future of rail passenger travel lies in the short to medium distance corridor type market, and possibly in the long term, in genuine high-speed train corridors; I define high speed as an AVERAGE speed of 125 mph. The concept behind the high-speed train is that it can be competitive timewise or perhaps faster than flying in terms of portal-to-portal travel time for trips of 200 - 400 miles provided the corridor has the ridership potential. However it won't be cheap, and it will take a sales job.

Others have pointed out the holes in the Amtrak Reform Council's plan to reform Amtrak; it smacks too much of the privatization of British Rail which in my experience (October, 2000) is a collassal failure. I think the Amtrak Reform Council should have been thinking in terms of reforming intercity railroad passenger travel rather than concentrating on reforming Amtrak.

If you examine the statistical appendix to Amtrak's FY 2000 Annual Report you will see the ridership trend for the long distance trains since 1991 is declining or is flat while the ridership trend for the short to medium distance trains is increasing so this is a good reason for abolishing them. Perhaps some long distance trains like the Auto Train or the Coast Starlight could be turned over to private operators as land cruise trains. The other point to remember is the security hassles that currently accompany flying. Presently domestic passengers are advised to arrive at the airport 2 hours before their flight is scheduled to leave because of the delay in clearing security; but, this state of affairs won't last forever. Already the DOT is looking into ways to speed the clearence through security so passengers won't have to spend more than 10 minutes going through the process. When that happens the passenger train could lose an hour's advantage over flying in short-to-medium hual corridors so what might have been timewise competitive with flying in a certain corridor will no longer be.

[jsanchez]

Take the TGV between Paris and Brussels and tell me trains won't fit into peoples needs for fast transportation between cities. The TGV's actually make money as do Japan's privatized bullet trains.As for profitabilty if the airlines had to cover the costs or air ports and air traffic controllers they would never make a profit, most aren't now with the heavey subsidies. Also if you can quote me the profit margin or rate of return on highways, interstates, the 7 billion big dig highway project in Boston, I would agree with you. I think major highways should be ran at a profit as the are in some other countries.

[Valleyline]

The only thing that's kept Amtrak going for as long as it has is the long distance trains, not because of their passenger counts but for the political support they've generated in Congress. Support for rail passenger service of any kind will sharply drop if service is to become limited to high density corridors at the expense of dropping service to middle America. Let's face it, Amtrak's losses are being generated in the northeast corridor as well as by the lomg distance trains. I'd like to think that US railroads are smart enough to operate profitable passenger services, but the world wide record shows nothing but government subsidies no matter how popular the services are.

[Anonymous]

I agree that passenger train service in the US is just not going to make a profit. Except for some short distance commuter movements, there is not enough demand.

In my opinion, trains are not competing with air planes. They are competing with buses. You would have to have alot of riders going the same place, on a very reliable schedule to make passenger rail profit.

I don't want tax dollars to prop up an industry when there isn't enough demand for it to work. Sorry if this upsets anyone, but I think it is the straight truth.

[thirdrail1]

On the very lowest end, perhaps trains do compete with buses. But there is about as much similarity between a Superliner sleeping car and a Greyhound bus as there is between it and a 737. I would more than willingly ride overnight in a Superliner, but you'd have to shackle me and put me under armed guard to force me to ride overnight in a Greyhound! Besides, buses are harder to find than trains in many parts of the country. They can't compete with the highly subsidized airlines either.